• Author / Uploaded
• Henrik O. Bramsborg

Citation preview

RISK ASSESSMENT FOR HENRIK

BRAMSBORG’S

PERSONAL PROTECTION MODEL FOR QUESTIONNAIRES AND GRADING 01.05.2012-HB-2013

www.icpta.org

INTRODUCTION

After more than 18 years in a fascinating but motley profession, I have come to the realization that not all professionals in the industry are equally professional. This, of course, is not always due to lacking intellect or ability, but is just as much a question of poor instruction and training, together with a limited and rather ambiguous market for written material. In risk and threat assessment, I have noticed that instructors and authors primarily explain WHAT future bodyguards should ask when they land a client. I have yet to come across a single explanation of HOW to use the data collected from the client. In my own country, Denmark, I have decided to try and change this situation by publishing different material, all of which has been tested on clients and/or colleagues. This model is my first English publication (hope the translation is alright). I did so because I, myself, have lacked a model for the initial steps in a real risk assessment. The target group for this model is bodyguards. That includes part-time executive protection specialists for anonymous businessmen and women, full-time bodyguards for famous artists, or personal protection specialists employed on a governmental level, protecting diplomats. It is up to the reader to adapt the questions so they apply to the “customer” in question. This MODEL is just that. It is a model for making an initial risk assessment for a client. If you acquired the model in the hope that it would offer an allround solution, you have wasted your money. It is not intended as a replacement for one’s own thought process, but rather as a solution model, a method so to speak and source of inspiration. Note that the categorization applied in this booklet is a suggestion and not a requirement. The same applies to the number and formulation of questions. If you look through the material in the books mentioned at the back of this booklet, you will find an array of other possible categorizations, as a uniform model does not yet exist. I am aware that some companies claim to use models that are all-inclusive. To contribute to the discussion surrounding fixed models for risk and threat assessment: I have had many different clients from a variety of branches. Furthermore, the vast majority have been short-term contracts, which is quite natural, as I am an independent contractor. I have yet to come across two matching assessments, i.e., two cases with the same profile. As no two people (this includes individuals who hire personal protection) have had the same childhood, the same education, the same social life, the same job, etc., there will never be a single model capable of completely covering two different cases. For that reason, this model is also subject to reservations. There are simply too many external factors that will change the conclusion. So my experience is that you can use the same method for different cases, but not

the same model. (If any readers among you disagree and can prove the contrary, I would be very interested in hearing from you.) It is important that I point out that the copyright existing for this booklet only applies to the complete work. Should you wish to publish any portion of this material or use it for instruction purposes, you may do so, provided you inform me and properly cite the source. Accompanying this booklet is “General Considerations for Escorting Women Threatened by Violence,” which was written for crisis centers by Bramsborg Security & Safety. This short piece is very useful for bodyguards in need of evaluating a defined threat against women testifying against a former mate. The same copyright conditions apply to “General Considerations for Escorting Women Threatened by Violence.” Should you wish to publish any part of this material or use it for instruction purposes, you may do so, provided you inform me and properly cite the source.

I, personally, have derived much inspiration from other professionals in the industry. Likewise, I have received advice and criticism from bodyguards and instructors from around the world. My thanks go to: Tony Scotti, Gavin De Becker, Peter Van Dartel, Robert Oatman, Andy Hollinson, Richard Kobetz, Artie Belovin, Peter Consterdine, Mark Lonsdale, and James King. All of them have been sources of inspiration. In addition to them, I have a world of people to thank. I will spare the reader for all this, however, and simply thank my colleagues and competitors in the industry for keeping me on my toes. Thanks to my family for their support and understanding of my hectic working hours and, finally, to those who evaluated my material. HENRIK BRAMSBORG

2

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

RISK AND THREAT ASSESSMENT AS A TOOL

DEFINITION

Risk assessment is an overall assessment of factors that are or could be direct or indirect threats against our client, his/her well-being or environment. Threat assessment is a specific assessment of threats—natural or manmade—against our client, his or her well-being, or environment. WHY

We all make risk assessments in our daily lives. Most do so without really knowing it. Who would even think that the process of looking left, right, and then left again is actually a collection of data for a risk assessment? When crossing a street, we assess how many vehicles are coming toward us and then whether we can cross the road before the vehicles reach our position. To do this, our brain must process complex mathematical formulas that take into account distance, speed (the vehicle’s and our own), and light and shadow. That is how we survive in traffic and everywhere else in our environment. Man has always been capable of doing so, as it is a condition for our species’ survival. Unfortunately, risk assessment is most often done unconsciously. On the following pages, we will attempt, in connection with personal protection, to bring parts of the process up to the conscious level. In personal protection, risk assessment is our only tool for guarding against the principle of coincidence. Naturally, it is possible to protect an individual from a series of threats without a risk assessment. But it cannot be done without a certain amount of security holes. Such holes, arising from coincidental overlooked problems, are best closed by systematic process. This will minimize the risk of accidents and facilitate the establishment of a 360 degree base with which to develop a sustainable security system.

HOW

QUESTIONNAIRE/POINT SYSTEM:

3

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

First, basic data is collected. You should not overlook this data when creating the client-specific questionnaire. Because data such as age, geographic address, and branch of industry can influence your assessment, collection of basic data should always be the first step.

Basic data should include the following: Client’s: Full name Date of birth Place of birth Nationality Height Weight Physical description and Photo Business: Industry Sector Company name Ownership Position in company Company address Telephone numbers Fax E-mail Secretary data

Health: Physician data Blood type Medical history

Family: Names Dates of birth Places of birth Nationalities Heights Weights Physical descriptions and Photos Past: Military experience Unit Period Service locations Special service

Social life: Sports Memberships Positions of trust Routines Humanitarian work

Politically active Militant Public Positions

Some of the above basic data will save the bodyguard time, as it can provide answers to a number of questions regarding security. Once the basic data is collected, the questionnaire/point system is used. The following seven principal sections are used in the questionnaire: 1. Personal lifestyle 2. Professional lifestyle 3. Public profile 4. Politics and religion 5. Prejudices 6. People and places 7. Prior actions and relationships

4

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

We have established a simple system in which the numbers 0, 10 and 20 figure. These numbers very deliberately do not figure next to each question, as the client may be tempted to “adapt” his/her answers. By posing a series of meaningful questions and then “grading” them, we are able to paint a risk picture that is categorized as follows: no immediate risk, less likely risk, likely risk, defined and confirmed risk, and acute danger. There are no intermediate categories. When all the questions have been answered, the point total will indicate how big or small the risk is. Grading is done as follows: Are you prejudice with regard to, for instance, homosexuality, race, religion, women/men on the labor market, handicaps, or in any other way? 1. Yes

__

(20 points)

2. Don’t know

__

(10 points)

3. No

__

(0 points)

If the client checks “Yes,” for example, the answer is worth 20 points. When all the questions are answered, the figures are added, and the total tells us which of the five categories our client falls into. The points can be decimalized in relation to time and qualitative relevance. For instance, an offhand verbal threat made three years ago might not be as relevant as a very specific threat made by phone three weeks ago. Here, time can be an important factor. The quality factor lies in the source of your information. We differentiate between: 1. The direct source - e.g., the victim who has been threatened or the aggressor making the threat 2. Second-hand information – e.g., a witness or allegedly signed document 3. Third-party information – e.g., a document without confirmed signer or rumors. An account from the direct source is likely to be more accurate than an account from, for instance, an attesting witness. This is not always the case, however, as one must take into consideration the motives behind any account. Clearly, a questionnaire system can never be comprehensive, which is why we commonly use what we call footnote reports. A footnote report is a brief report that furnishes a fairly comprehensive explanation for an answer. One example could be:

5

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Have you had any romantic affair or other amorous relationship that could trigger threats from jilted parties? 1. No 2. Maybe

X

3. Yes

Answer: Checked “Maybe,” as two relationships over the last two years ended in confrontation. In these confrontations, the client was the passive party and the rejected partners were the aggressive parties. Since then there have been no confrontations or threats from the rejected parties. The answer in the footnote report is furnished verbally during an interview that follows completion of the form. Upon completion of the risk assessment, if it is found that a threat exists; additional interviews are conducted with the client. If the threat is defined, these interviews should focus as much as possible on the defined threat. If the threat is not defined, the interviewer should try to aim their questions in multiple directions so as to investigate as many threats as possible. For example, a political background, an unfortunate media statement, or a romantic affair all constitute directions that should be investigated.

The form here is industry-specific and should be adapted so that the questions are relevant for each client. Likewise, not all questions on the form are necessary for all clients. The described example relates to a businessman occupying a top position in an international firm. The series of questions is not comprehensive, but will give you an idea of how the model can be used. Practically-speaking, it is impossible to draw up an exhaustive list of questions, as the answer to each existing question in the model can give rise to a whole series of new questions. Example: Do you take or have you taken any kind of medicine or narcotic? 1. Yes

X

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

6

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

A “Yes” is not comprehensive, since we do not know whether the substance the client takes is hazardous or whether it has a life-prolonging or healing effect. New questions, therefore, could include: What medicine/narcotic? Why do you take the medicine/narcotic? When do you take the medicine/narcotic? How often do you take it/them? Etc. The same can be said of a number of other questions, such as those regarding sports. Not all sports are equally healthy. Both scuba diving and skydiving are categorized as sports, but do not require any particular physical skill. A man or woman with circulatory problems owing to obesity would absolutely NOT benefit from diving for corals at a depth of 30-50 feet— regardless of whether or not it is a sport. Again, you can start with a 5-page list of questions and end up with a 50-page list. Underlining the complexity of this type of form, the questioning technique should/will also vary from client to client. Some clients are academically educated and are used to the type of language spoken in an academic environment. Others, for instance, those with newly acquired wealth who started independently and later became successful businessmen, might expect a more relaxed language. Some artists’ education was so fundamental that it is reminiscent of “My Fair Lady.” How far should you then go in your assessment? The short answer is: as far as practically possible. Naturally, this depends on a number of factors: The client’s immediate entourage, the client’s expectations, your own assessment/intuition, environment, culture, etc. Again, the following pages are only question proposals!

7

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PERSONAL LIFESTYLE

Are you in good physical shape? 1. No

__

2. Maybe

__

3. Yes __ Are you physically active?1 1. No

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. Yes

__

What kind of person are you? 1. Bachelor/Fast lane

__

2. Relaxed social life

__

3. Family man/woman

__

Do you have any allergies? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

1

Active sports are generally considered healthy, but extreme sports are not always without risks. Therefore, you should consider the type of sport practiced by the client and his physiological level.

8

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Do you take or have you taken any kind of medicine or narcotic? 1. Yes

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

Do you have or have you had any physical afflictions? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Do you have or have you had any mental afflictions?2 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

What kind of person are you? 1. Dominant or provocative

__

2. Introverted and quiet

__

3. Assertive, empathetic

__

What is your sexual preference, based on societal standards?3 1. Extreme

__

2. Experimental

__

3. Normal

__

2

Note: In some cultures, there is a great deal of shame attached to having suffered from depression or the like, so the answer may be somewhat colored. 3

More than a few people have died during sexual acts that got out of hand. What is more, there can be risks associated with certain sexual subcultures.

9

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Cont. Are you monogamous?4 1. No

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. Yes

__

Are you law-abiding?

4

1. No

__

2. Almost always

__

3. Yes

__

This is primarily with respect to problems with rejected lovers or former partners.

10

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

P R O F E SS I O N A L L I F E S T Y L E

Are you: 1. Employer/manager

__

2. Freelancer or similar

__

3. Employee

__

Do you work5 1. Over 50 hours a week

__

2. 40 hours a week

__

3. Less than 40 hours a week __ Is your work stressful? 1. Yes

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

Is your work physically demanding?6

5

1. Yes

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

The response here could give us an indication of potential future problems such as stress and burn-out.

6

In addition to the more obvious risks, this could give us an indication of the relative length of the client’s work life and possible health problems associated with stress.

11

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PUBLIC PROFILE

Are you a public personality? 1. Yes

__

2. Partly 3. No

__ __

Have you made public statements about controversial issues, politics, religion, sexuality, the environment, animal welfare or the like? 1. Recently

__

2. Long ago

__

3. Never

__

Are you a member of any association that makes public statements or which is often in the spotlight? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Do you serve on any board that makes public statements or which is often in the spotlight? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

12

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

POLITIC S AND RELIGION

Are you politically active? 1. Very

__

2. Somewhat

__

3. No

__

Are you a member of a political party? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Do you meet with politicians?7 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Are you religious? 1. Yes

__

2. Somewhat

__

3. No

__

Cont. 7

The primary concern here is that the client may be an unfortunate victim of a criminal act aimed against the political figure whom the client happens to be with.

13

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Do you go to mass or confession? 1. Regularly

__

2. Rarely

__

3. Never

__

Do you meet with religious figures? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Do you know any individuals who are political or religious radicals?8 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

8

Here, the concern is that the client may fall victim to hearsay or gross accusations and, therefore, could be designated as a target of certain governments or extremists.

14

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PREJUDICE

Are you prejudice with regard to, for instance, homosexuality, race, religion, women/men on the labor market, handicaps, or in any other way? 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

If so, do you speak openly about the topic?9 1. Yes

__

2. Rarely 3. No

__ __

Have you ever been accused of being prejudice? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you had confrontations with any of the above categories of individuals?

9

1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Even when intended as humoristic anecdotes, prejudice comments can be taken amiss.

15

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PEOPLE AND PLACES

Do you know or have you known anyone who might want to harm you? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you, your family, your company or your industry ever been threatened? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Can you, your family, or your company be associated with people who have been threatened? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Do you live in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides and cloudbursts do not normally occur.) 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Do you work in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides and cloudbursts do not normally occur.)

16

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Do you vacation in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides, cloudbursts, etc., do not normally occur.) 1. Yes

__

2. Don’t know

__

3. No

__

Are you ever stationed in foreign countries? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Does your company have units in countries in which your company’s presence is unwanted by the population or parts of the population? 10 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Do you work, travel, or vacation in areas where there are nuclear, biological or chemical companies? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

10

Even though the client may not personally work in that country, he/she is not out of harms way. A radical group could aim an attack against the company’s domestic parent company.

17

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

P R E V I O U S A C T S A N D R E L AT I O N S H I P S

Have you ever committed a crime in this country, other countries or cultures? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you ever committed an act that might be considered morally offensive by others? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you ever been involved in an armed conflict? (either civil or military) 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Were you once politically or religiously active? 1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Can you be associated with people from your past who have been politically or religiously active?

18

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

G R A D I N G A N D C O N C LU S I O N

Depending on the questionnaire you used and, in particular, the point system you used, you can use a graph with a given number of points ranging from 0 to 500, as in this example. In this system, we have chosen to use the following five categories: No immediate risk, Less likely risk, Likely risk, Defined and confirmed risk and, finally, Acute danger.

19

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Acut e dang er

301-400 Defined and confirmed risk 201-300 Likely risk

101-200 Less likely risk

0-100 No immediate risk

This is just an example. Form is not important when you change the questionnaire, as the variables can be changed in relation to the number of questions, the significance of the answers, etc. In this example, the categories do not change. The only way to change the values is to change the answers. This can happen if the client, deliberately or not, gives the wrong answer and the error is discovered during the interview. Hence, the importance of the interview. Let’s imagine we get a questionnaire back from a client and we do a preliminary analysis. In other words, we analyze the answers based on what we already know, what we have learned from the client’s entourage, and can learn from public sources. Out of 30 questions, there are three answers regarding personality and lifestyle that are eye-catching in that they seem remarkably positive vis-à-vis the client. What’s more, the remaining 27 answers total 190 points.

20

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

If the interview reveals that the client has embellished the truth in the three answers concerning personality and lifestyle, the threat picture changes from Less likely risk to Likely risk. In addition, each answer must be reexamined, as there is a theoretical possibility that the client also answered other questions favorably in his own short-sighted egoistic interest. During the interview, the results of the risk assessment might jump up as many as two categories. This occurs frequently with questions relating to personality and lifestyle, in particular. Not necessarily owing to mean-spiritedness, a sense of honor, or mere vanity. It is just as often a misunderstood perception of the ego. The conclusion can be drawn with or without a threat assessment. It goes without saying, if no reason is found during the analysis to make a threat assessment, then there is no reason to do so. Unless, of course, it is to point out that smoking is unhealthy or that too much bacon with breakfast will kill the client in the long run. The conclusion should contain the following: Date and time of the analysis Method used for the analysis Sources used for the analysis Description of highlights and significant changes following interview(s) Summary, with recommendations Signature of interviewer and any assistants In addition, it is important not to forget reservations pertaining to external factors and false information. As pointed out earlier, the client may have different reasons to say one thing when reality is another. I will not get into motives and causal need1, but merely point out that we all adapt our behavior to our environment, and very personal questions can seem frightening to some.

1. Causal needs often arising in childhood T H R E AT A SS E SS M E N T

Definition: 1. Identification of one or more threats

21

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

2. Investigation into and assessment of the threat(s) 3. Handling of each threat Threat assessment is an important tool in the consulting process. If anything, the client naturally wants to know what he/she has to be afraid of. As we said earlier, a threat assessment is only relevant when there is a specific threat. For instance, if we know for a fact that Al Qaeda has the client on its list of targets or that the client’s profile matches the type of target usually pursued by a particular criminal / terrorist organization. Another threat could be the direct threat derived from the client’s own conduct. Many famous personalities have lost money through compensation claims—not to mention jobs and market shares—because they have physically or verbally abused others in public. Some have been labeled by prostitutes as sexual deviants. Such behavior constitutes a direct threat to the client’s renommé and, consequently, revenue, and should be uncovered. But the threat assessment is especially based on data collected from public sources. Start with what you, yourself, can find out. Then, if deemed safe to do so, look for information from the client’s entourage/organization and, lastly, from the authorities2. After data has been collected, threat models can be useful in defining the characteristics that are typical of the threats. This could be, for instance, the dynamics of a car pile-up, a hurricane’s potential trajectory and strength, or a terrorist group’s modus operandi. When all possibilities have been considered, a conclusion should be drawn again—this time only regarding the relevant threat scenario(s). Advice is then given accordingly.

2. The more information you possess, the greater the chances are that the authorities will cooperate.

22

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

RISK MANAGEMENT

Definition: As it pertains to personal protection, risk management is traditionally divided into three categories: A. Risks that can be eliminated B. Risks that can be reduced C. Risks that can be neither eliminated nor reduced Examples: Risks that can be eliminated. Proof exists that a client has been threatened and attacked by a former colleague. ! – The client is protected physically, evidence is collected, the case is reported, and the aggressor is taken into custody. Risks that can be reduced. A client lives in a geographic area known for its high criminal statistics. ! - The statistics are laid out and acceptable alternative homes are proposed. Risks that can be neither eliminated nor reduced. A client lives in a country where kidnapping is a frequent occurrence. The client cannot or does not wish to stop working there and cannot afford bodyguards. ! – The client is trained in personal safety and safety in hostage situations. A crisis plan is developed and insurance is taken out. As we have seen, risk management is largely a matter of controlling one’s conduct. Who does what in a particular situation? Here, too, we must rely on the client’s willingness to cooperate. Not only to change the client’s behavior, but also to convince the client’s entourage that their behavior can be more appropriate. Efforts to protect a client from terrorism or criminality can be in vain if the client’s private chauffeur chooses to drive like a madman or while intoxicated. In this case, a request from the client could be a way in which to change the driver’s behavior. Common to Risk Assessment, Threat Assessment, and Risk Management is that you, as consultant, must constantly adjust your results. The world is constantly evolving and so will your conclusions and subsequent advice to the client.

23

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

In principle, an analysis that is two days old is outdated. Naturally, this depends on the topic and external factors: Know that the client's reaction to your advice will largely depend on your argumentation and the manner in which you present the conclusion/advice. As such, it can be a good idea to obtain written reports from authorities or public/semipublic institutions that can back your advice. There will be those customers who consciously object to having a risk assessment done. There can be many reasons for objecting to an assessment, but it is most often merely a sign of ignorance. I always do a risk assessment. Regardless of the client’s wishes. The client can choose not to participate, but that merely means that the assessment will be based on a weaker foundation. This is formulated in writing to the client, who then has the opportunity to see what risk assessment is and to change their mind regarding their participation in the assessment. A client can also choose to participate in the assessment, only to ignore or reject your advice. Depending on the relationship between you and your client, you can politely protest or you will have to adapt your advice and protection according to the client’s conduct. This can be quite frustrating, but is part of being a consultant/bodyguard. Some colleagues in the industry choose not to do risk assessments. We have heard some argue that the customer will not be using the assessment for anything anyway or that the client will not pay the extra cost involved in doing a risk assessment. That attitude is regrettable. In part, because it is part of our job to do the assessments. Also, because the risk assessments serve to help the bodyguard, so they are not harmed while providing personal protection. Thus, whatever the client’s attitude toward risk assessments, we strongly recommend that persons providing personal protection should make such assessments. In some cases, for example oneday assignments, it may appear to be a burden on resources. That way of thinking can kill. The U.S. Secret Service, U.S. State Department, Danish PET, Metropolitan Police, and Scotland Yard all use risk assessments. No government agency operating in the field of personal protection works without risk assessments. Nor do I see any reason why we in the private sector should do so.

24

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

25

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Source material is taken from the following books: The New Executive Protection Bible. M.J. Braunig The Art of Executive Protection. Robert L. Oatman The Modern Bodyguard. Peter Consterdine Bodyguard: A Practical Guide to VIP Protection. Mark V. Lonsdale The Bodyguard Manual: Protection Techniques of the Professionals. Leroy Thompson Providing Executive Protection I+II. Edited by Dr. Richard Kobetz Providing Protective Services. James A. King Bodyguarding: A Complete Manual. Burt Rapp & Tony Lesce Executive Protection Specialist Handbook, sec. edition J. Glazebrook & N. Nicholson, Ph.D. Men in Black. Bodyguard Training Manual. Mark Yates

26

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

In addition the above, there are a number of other interesting books that briefly address the subject. It is my hope that the model and explanations in this booklet have been useful and can be instrumental in your work. It is a good idea to reread the example from time to time, as these types of models have a tendency to be forgotten. When this happens, we fall back into the ”old” routine of guessing our way forward or asking too few questions.

ICPTA offers the following courses: 7 day Basic Close Protection course Stalking countermeasures PR-24/Tonfa courses Selfdefense and combatives courses Evasive driving courses The above courses are open courses.

For more information, visit us at www.icpta.org

The content of this material may not be reproduced in either hard copy or electronic form. Partial reproduction is permitted with the author’s written consent. Contact Henrik Bramsborg at [email protected] concerning reproduction.

27

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

28

©2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG